newsgroup for cacti?

Thank you Martin for understanding the actual problem.
It is rather tiresome reading from those who's only interest is
proliferating usenet and really have absolutely no interest in succulent
plants nor what is currently available on the Internet for the cactophile.
Their myopic bias is more than obvious. Most cactophiles are already happy
with the forum they are using and the idea of a newsgroup does not appeal to
them. Diversity of media is not the issue at all.
The fact that Bruno (Psycho Cactus) was not even aware of Cacti_etc nor went
over their archives to see what had been discussed on the topic shows his
proposal was not well thought out nor properly researched. If there was an
interest in a Cactus newsgroup by the Cactus Society, the existing
rec.gardens.cacti would already have been made more widely available years
ago, would it not? That there has been very little response from subscribers
to existing gardening newsgroups also show there is little interest in
arbitrarily creating yet another newsgroup. Those are the facts.
Martin Brown <martin.brown at pandora.be> wrote in message
news:3BE8E809.8266262D at pandora.be...
>> Brian Watson wrote:
>> > "Martin Brown" <martin.brown at pandora.be> wrote in message
> > news:3BE793F6.BE49BFA9 at pandora.be...> >
> > > It's widely known by people interested in growing cacti and succulents
and
> > many
> > > of the online resources for these plants point to it. I probably would
not
> > > oppose creating a rec.gardens.cacti but I doubt it will be much
frequented
> > by
> > > experts given the pre existence of an established high quality
listserver in
> >
> > > "cacti_etc".
> >
> > Even if you're right, I don't see the fact that it might appeal to a
> > different sector of growers and enthusiasts as being a valid objection.
>> I didn't say it was, but to stand a decent chance of the newsgroup being
brought
> into existence he has to bring the RFD to the attention of sufficient
interested
> people to vote for it.
>> Failure to even mention cacti_etc shows that his proposal was woefully ill
> researched.
>> > > Proposing a new Usenet group without first canvassing for support from
the
> > > members of the main listserver devoted to the topic does not strike me
as a
> > > particularly smart opening gambit.
> >
> > It *was* posted to the appropriate place to solicit discussion. Anywhere
> > else is an optional plus.
>> Yes. But if he wants to get cactophiles out to vote in favour of it...
>> Regards,
> Martin Brown
>